Stone Court

Because there are still people out there who believe that Ralph Nader has some goal other than electing Republican presidents, I thought I'd highlight the three "News Updates" linked at the head of the Nader for President Exploratory Committee website:

Big Business Loves Hillary

Dems May Provide Pretext for Nader

Eight More Years?

The first two, I suppose, speak for themselves, but "Eight More Years?" has to be about the Republicans, no? No. It's a Nader-written article (I guess that passes for "news" on Nader's site) excoriating the Clintons. I'll leave most of the deconstruction of Nader's piece to the reader, but I do have to point out this whopper:

Bragging about millions of jobs his Administration created, [Bill Clinton] neglected to note that incomes stagnated for 80% of the workers in the country and ended in 2000, under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation.

Did I miss something? Was Bill Clinton President in 1973? What Nader omits is that Clinton was the only Presidents since 1973 who has presided over a decrease in inequality. According to Princeton's Larry Bartels (at 7-8):

Despite these long-term forces, distinguishing between Democratic and Republican administrations ... reveals the regularity with which Democratic presidents reduced and Republican presidents increased the prevailing level of economic inequality, irrespective of the long-term trend.... The 80/20 income ratio increased under each of the five Republican presidents in this period – Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the elder Bush. On the other hand, four of five Democratic presidents – all except Jimmy Carter – presided over declines in income inequality.... Even in the highly inegalitarian economic climate of the 1990s, Bill Clinton managed to produce slightly stronger income growth for families at the 20th percentile (2.0%) than at the 80th percentile (1.9%), though families at the very top of the income distribution did even better.

So, not perfect, but a whole lot better than any Republican. But what are facts when Republican control of the White House is threatened?

I agree with Ann and the commenters at Feministing that NOW-NYS's press release calling Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama an "Ultimate Betrayal Felt by Women Everywhere" is "completely unhinged".

Still, Mary and I were wondering why, when Kennedy made his decision, he felt he should deliver the news not to his Senate colleague herself, but to her husband:

Mr. Kennedy called Mr. Clinton Sunday to tell him of his decision.